]]>This Fire Extinguisher Training Course enables your staff to identify and safely use the correct fire extinguisher to extinguish small fires in the workplace. We will prepare your staff to identify and safely use the correct fire extinguisher to extinguish small fires in the workplace. Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, staff are required to be trained in use of fire-fighting equipment.

Training courses are for a maximum of 15 people at your premises with our equipment. Multiple training sessions can be quoted for at special rates.

Our bespoke Fire Extinguisher training course is fully compliant with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) order of 2005, so not only can you rest assured your staff are receiving real world, practical training on the use of fire extinguishers but also that you and your business are compliant with the letter of the law.

Everyone has seen the fire extinguishers on the wall or in cabinets in their places of employment or stores, but how many people would know how to use one if there was a fire?

Prerequisite: None, although a working knowledge of Fire Safety is an advantage

]]>Asbestos Breach by Manchester Developerhttps://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/asbestos-breach-by-manchester-developer/
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:58:51 +0000https://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/?p=3274Asbestos Breach by Manachester Devoloper, who failed to carry out a refurbishment/Demolition Asbestos Survey. The owner of a commercial property in Manchester’s Northern Quarter has received a six month prison sentence, suspended for two years, after failing to prevent exposure to asbestos during major refurbishment work. According to the HSE, Whaid Ahmed had not surveyed […]

Asbestos Breach by Manachester Devoloper, who failed to carry out a refurbishment/Demolition Asbestos Survey.

The owner of a commercial property in Manchester’s Northern Quarter has received a six month prison sentence, suspended for two years, after failing to prevent exposure to asbestos during major refurbishment work.

According to the HSE, Whaid Ahmed had not surveyed his property at 1-3 Stevenson Square in central Manchester (pictured above) before renovation work that took place between 1 April 2012 and 12 October 2017.

A survey was carried out following a routine visit by an HSE inspector. This revealed large amounts of asbestos to be present, some in very poor condition.

This indicated that that asbestos could have previously been removed from areas of the building that had already been renovated without any controls being in place.

According to the HSE’s enforcement database, two immediate prohibition notices were served against Ahmed on 11 October 2017.

One stated that he had failed to ensure that a suitable and sufficient assessment for the presence of asbestos had been carried out before starting work, placing people at risk.

According to the second notice, persons were at risk of an electric shock liable to cause injury or death due to exposed conductors on the live 240 V distribution board.

The HSE said that it had undertaken previous enforcement action against Ahmed over a similar issue, so he was well aware of his duties regarding asbestos under the law.

At Manchester Magistrates’ Court, Ahmed, of Hale Barns, Altrincham, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5(a), 11(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

Regulation 5(a) says that an employer must not undertake any work which is liable to expose employees to asbestos unless an assessment has been carried out; Regulation 11(1)(a) compels employers to prevent the exposure of any employee to asbestos so far as is reasonably practicable.

Regulation 16 relates to preventing or minimising the spread of asbestos from any place where work is being carried out.

Ahmed was given a six month prison sentence, suspended for two years. He was also sentenced to 250 hours of community service and ordered to pay costs of £5742.14.

HSE inspector Matt Greenly said: “This case highlights the importance of surveying a property for asbestos to prevent risk to anyone occupying or working in that building and to reduce the risk of exposure to asbestos and contracting incurable diseases as a result of that exposure.”

According to the enforcement database, on 15 December 2017 and again on 13 August 2018 Ahmed was served with a further immediate prohibition notices also regarding the property on Stevenson Square.

Ahmed, whose address is given as 40 Carrwood, Hale Barns, Altrincham, had “failed to ensure that identified asbestos debris and waste has been adequately dealt within the ceiling void above Slice Pizzeria and Chai Latte”, according to the most recent notice.

The notice set a compliance date of 10 September 2018 and enforcement is ongoing, according to the database.

]]>JD Sports shop has been fined £60,000https://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/jd-sports-shop-has-been-fined-60000/
Thu, 02 Nov 2017 14:51:11 +0000https://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/?p=2748JD Sports Shop has been fined £60,000 after firefighters found that piles of stock ordered for the Christmas rush had blocked emergency exits at one of its Black Country stores. West Midlands Fire Service found that escape routes at the JD Sports shop in the Merry Hill shopping centre in Brierley Hill was lined with […]

]]>JD Sports Shop has been fined £60,000 after firefighters found that piles of stock ordered for the Christmas rush had blocked emergency exits at one of its Black Country stores.

West Midlands Fire Service found that escape routes at the JD Sports shop in the Merry Hill shopping centre in Brierley Hill was lined with crates and stock, reducing the width of one corridor to just 30cm.
Wolverhampton Magistrates Court heard that inspectors visited the JD Sports Shop in December 2015 as part of routine pre-Christmas programme of visits.
They found that too much stock had been ordered, causing an overstock problem with clothes rails blocking the store’s fire escapes.
The fire service left staff at the shop with instructions to clear the exit routes, but when inspectors returned two weeks later they found that their advice had been ignored.

“In spite of our warning that we would be revisiting, breaches were again identified when we returned two weeks later. Retailers must realise they can’t put profit before people’s safety by over-stocking, reducing the width of escape routes and blocking fire exit routes.”

A fire risk assessment carried out by the firm 18 months before the visit by the West Midlands Fire Service had identified problems with escape routes being blocked by packaging waste, according to regional newspaper the Express and Star.
The May 2014 assessment recommended that the waste be removed, and that a store manager should check the escape route every day.

JD Sports shop fined £60,000 after stock rduced escape routes to 30cm

JD Sports shop has been fined £60,000 after firefighters found that piles of stock ordered for the Christmas rush had blocked emergency exits at one of its Black Country stores.

Recommended articles:

West Midlands Fire Service found that escape routes at the JD Sports shop in the Merry Hill shopping centre in Brierley Hill was lined with crates and stock, reducing the width of one corridor to just 30cm.
Wolverhampton Magistrates Court heard that inspectors visited the store in December 2015 as part of routine pre-Christmas programme of visits.

They found that too much stock had been ordered, causing an overstock problem with clothes rails blocking the store’s fire escapes.
The fire service left staff at the shop with instructions to clear the exit routes, but when inspectors returned two weeks later they found that their advice had been ignored

JD Sports Fashion admitted six offences. District Judge Michael Wheeler fined the store £10,000 for each charge and also ordered it to pay £7464 in costs.

According to the Express and Star, he said: “The problems that existed seem to have arisen, at least in part, because of stock management problems. It is worrying to me that the problems had been identified in its own risk assessment some 18 months beforehand.”

Mick Norton, a fire inspection officers at West Midlands Fire Service, said: “It beggars belief that the company compromised the safety of their staff and Christmas shoppers in this way.

“In spite of our warning that we would be revisiting, breaches were again identified when we returned two weeks later.

“We do everything we can to advise businesses on fire safety, but will not hesitate to prosecute if our advice is ignored.

“Retailers must realise they can’t put profit before people’s safety by over-stocking, reducing the width of escape routes and blocking fire exit routes.

]]>Grenfell inquiry to consider tower’s refurbishment and fire safety lawshttps://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/grenfell-inquiry-consider-towers-refurbishment-fire-safety-laws/
Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:01:37 +0000https://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/?p=2688The post Grenfell inquiry to consider tower’s refurbishment and fire safety laws appeared first on Cambridge Risk Management.
]]>The post Grenfell inquiry to consider tower’s refurbishment and fire safety laws appeared first on Cambridge Risk Management.
]]>Asbestos in Schools – What is the solutionhttps://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/asbestos-in-schools-what-is-the-solution/
Sun, 02 Apr 2017 21:07:18 +0000https://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/?p=2653Asbestos in schools, what is the solution, this is a serious problem which could threaten the health of children. Government report has found, as it concluded that thousands of schools are failing to follow safety guidelines. One fifth of schools which responded to an official survey were found to be “not fully compliant” with asbestos procedures, leaving over […]

Asbestos in schools, what is the solution, this is a serious problem which could threaten the health of children. Government report has found, as it concluded that thousands of schools are failing to follow safety guidelines.

One fifth of schools which responded to an official survey were found to be “not fully compliant” with asbestos procedures, leaving over a million children potentially exposed to dangerous fibres.

Of those, over 100 schools were deemed a “significant cause for concern” and required government intervention. The Department for Education (DfE) said it emailed those schools and received “reassurances” the asbestos is now safe.

Earlier this week a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that “asbestos is a significant, and potentially dangerous, issue in many buildings, including most schools”.

The NAO report also noted that “the department does not collate information on the number of school buildings affected”.

According to the National Union of Teachers, 319 teachers have died from mesothelioma since 1980. It is estimated that for every teacher’s death, nine children will die, meaning over 100 people will die every year in the UK as a result of exposure when they were at school.

“These results seriously call into question the DfE’s fundamental assumption that asbestos can be managed safely left in situ, as clearly this is not happening in too many cases,” said Chris Keates, general secretary of the teaching union NASUWT.

“Asbestos is lethal. The only safe asbestos is removed asbestos. The DfE must bring forward proposals for the phased removal of all asbestos in schools without delay.”

A voluntary survey was sent to schools by the Government between January and March last year, but only a quarter of schools responded.

This means that true number of schools who do not comply with asbestos safety procedures is likely to be far higher, as the report notes that there may be a “selection bias” towards schools that “already manage asbestos well”.

A report on asbestos in schools by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Occupational Health and Safety in 2012 recommended that the Government set up programme to remove asbestos from all schools.

It concluded: “It is clear that, at present, there are serious deficiencies in the way that asbestos is managed in schools.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “The health and safety of children and staff in our schools is vital – that’s why we are investing £23 billion in school buildings by 2021. This will help ensure asbestos is managed safely and that the amount in school buildings continues to reduce over time.

“We have published updated guidance for schools on how to manage asbestos and the results of a survey which showed the majority of respondents have procedures in place. We have followed up with the schools which responded and did not have these procedures in place, and they have all provided assurances they are now compliant with Health and Safety Executive regulations.”

]]>Contractor fined for poor asbestos assessmenthttps://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/contractor-fined-poor-asbestos-assessment/
Sun, 02 Apr 2017 21:05:12 +0000https://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/?p=2651A Bedfordshire based contractor has been fined after failing to carry out suitable assessment of asbestos removal work. Luton Magistrates Court heard how Anthony West was contracted to complete demolition work at a building in Biggleswade. West then had a pre-demolition asbestos survey carried out for the building. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had […]

]]>A Bedfordshire based contractor has been fined after failing to carry out suitable assessment of asbestos removal work.

Luton Magistrates Court heard how Anthony West was contracted to complete demolition work at a building in Biggleswade. West then had a pre-demolition asbestos survey carried out for the building.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had the demolition work reported to 16 April 2015by a member of the public which prompted an investigation into the work.

The investigation found that West did not adequately check the pre-demolition asbestos survey before carrying out the work, and did not follow advice to use a licensed asbestos removal contractor.

West, of Earwig Farm House, Pavenham, Bedford has pleaded guilty to breaching sections 5,7,8 and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and has been fined £2970 and ordered to pay costs of £5419.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Alison Outhwaite said: “The safety failings in this case could have led to severe illness in later years. West not only put himself at risk to exposure but potentially to fellow workers and members of the public walking past. Duty holders have the responsibility to ensure that adequate assessments take place to avoid the risk of asbestos exposure. This includes checking the accuracy and clarity of any information provided by others.”

The HSE has been forced to dramatically restructure its procedure for appealing against Fee for Intervention bills in order to overcome a High Court legal battle scheduled for 8March.

As part of the restructure the HSE has agreed for the first time to disclose its evidence and reasoning to dutyholders, and to appoint a new adjudication panel of independent experts.

The HSE has negotiated the terms of the reform with facilities firm OCS Group who originally brought the judicial review. The terms are set out in a legally binding “consent order” issued by the High Court on 23 February.

The consent order outlines six terms that the regulator must comply with and stipulates that the new procedure must be in place by 1 September 2017.

The HSE has announced plans to consult on proposal to make its cost recovery scheme dispute process fully independent. The consultation will relate to the details of the process, or possible additional requirements to the outlined scheme.

On Wednesday 29th March 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50, starting the process which will officially take Britain out of the European Union (EU) in March 2019
This was shortly followed by the publishing of the Great Repeal Bill White Paper on Thursday 30th March.

This document sets out the government’s proposal for ensuring a functioning statue book once the UK has left the EU and provides details about:

The repeal of the European Communities Act 1972;

How EU law will be converted into UK law; and

How corrections will be made to the statue book to ensure the law continues to function once Britain leave the EU.

Once the Great Repeal Bill is in force the UK will be an independent sovereign nation with laws made in Westminster rather than Brussels. To achieve this, the Great Repeal Bill will do three main things:

Repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and return power to UK institutions;

Subject to the proposals set out in the White Paper, convert EU law, as it stands at the moment of exit, into UK law before Britain leave the EU. This will allow businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not significantly changed overnight; and

Create power to make secondary legislation. This will enable corrections to be made to the laws that would otherwise no longer operate appropriately once Britain has left the EU.

Overall, the Great Repeal Bill aims to ensure that, as a general rule, the same rules and laws will apply after we leave the EU as they did before. Without this Bill and the conversion of EU law into domestic law the UK’s statue book would contain significant gaps.

]]>Catastrophic Bleed Management Coursehttps://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/catastrophic-bleed-management-course/
Sun, 08 Jan 2017 15:11:49 +0000https://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/?p=2565Our Catastrophic Bleed Management Course is suited towards outdoor and remote activities, as well as workers within identified high risk industries such as Agricultural, Saw mills, Forestry, Tree surgery, Farming, Game shooting, Gun clubs, Security, Construction, as well as event medics and those with first aid or first responder qualifications that would like ‘bolt-on’ qualifications […]

]]>Our Catastrophic Bleed Management Course is suited towards outdoor and remote activities, as well as workers within identified high risk industries such as Agricultural, Saw mills, Forestry, Tree surgery, Farming, Game shooting, Gun clubs, Security, Construction, as well as event medics and those with first aid or first responder qualifications that would like ‘bolt-on’ qualifications to enhance their skill set.

]]>CDM 2015 – Management of Health & Safety in Constructionhttps://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/cdm-2015/
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 20:52:36 +0000https://cambridgeriskmanagement.com/?p=2532Under the CDM 2015 (Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015) a construction phase plan is required for EVERY construction project. This does not need to be complicated or burdensome. If you are working for a domestic client, you will be in control of the project if you are the only contractor or the principal contractor. If […]

Under the CDM 2015 (Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015) a construction phase plan is required for EVERY construction project. This does not need to be complicated or burdensome.

If you are working for a domestic client, you will be in control of the project if you are the only contractor or the principal contractor. If you are the only contractor, by default, you are the principal contractor!

You will be responsible for:

preparing a plan;

organising the work; and

communicating and working together with others to ensure positive health and safety.

You could be a builder, plumber or other tradesman, doing small-scale routine work such as:

installing a kitchen or bathroom;

structural alterations, e.g chimney breast removal;

roofing work, including dormer windows;

extension or loft conversion.

A simple plan before the work starts is usually enough to show that you have thought about health and safety.

BUT If the job will last longer than 500 person days or 30 working days (with more than 20 people working at the same time) it will need to be notified to HSE and it is likely to be too complex for this simple plan format.

If you require us to prepare a Construction Phase Plan for you then please contact John Buckley 07411142946